Thursday, December 06, 2018

What Americans need to know about George H. W. Bush

Today, as never before in our history, Americans need the truth and choices which solve the problems we face.  George H. W. Bush has passed, but the most important imprint he left on American politics remains unknown to Americans.    
George H. W. Bush (HW) had a family who profited mightily from his professional life. Then and today they are joined at the bank account.  As a ‘public servant’, HW was charged to serve us; but his loyalties were with those who have brought Americans to the tipping point of complete disaster, unprotected by the wealth Americans honestly earned.  Instead, we have been rendered increasingly vulnerable through the same actions which enriched HW’s own family at the expense of ordinary Americans.    
If we are to correct course, and save ourselves from becoming a third world nation, we need to understand how disinformation, control of our elections, the media, and public opinion has led us to the precipice in these days before Christmas, 2018. 
In this, HW’s life can serve Americans by providing insights and truths desperately needed.
Read the memorial to HW written by John Fund, a ‘columnist’ for National Review, titled, John Fund: Why  was  George  H.W. Bush a one-term  president?   Fund is a disinformation agent attempting to continue the cover-up of what happened in 1992.  The National Review was founded by yet another disinformation agent for the same interests, William F. Buckley, Jr..  Buckley served these same interests, Big Oil, by taking the agenda of those then known as ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ to absolute control of the Republican Party; merging the federalization of American government with big business, not free enterprise; consolidation of what we know today as the 99% vs. the 1%. 
From the time he graduated from Yale, Buckley was working for the CIA.  With this we move into the murky world of psy-ops, his assignment to alter the meaning of the word, “Conservative.”  If you read this short article, “Will the Real Conservative Please Stand?” you see how far today’s definition deviates from the ideas which drove a generation of young people to support Barry Goldwater for President in 1964, and then turn their backs on the GOP, leaving it to become libertarians or non-political problem-solvers. 
There was strong opposition to Buckley, because genuine conservatives knew his roots in the CIA and that his opinions were not Conservative towards smaller government, even as he railed against Liberals.  Buckley was an operative, he understood the meaning of the word, “Conservative,” specified a consistent viewpoint diametrically in opposition to that of Rockefeller Republicans.  Therefore, the understanding of the word, “Conservative” needed to be altered so their emerging NeoConservative coalition for federalization could be carried out. 
  I heard about  this  re-branding from Joe Shell, a friend of Barry Goldwater’s in 1990 when he was working on a campaign to elect free-marketeer Dolores Bender White to the 20th State Senate District in California.  I heard the same, and more, from Connie Ruffley, a life-long member of United Republicans of California (UROC), the same organization which assured the election of Ronald Reagan as governor of California.  
The goal was centralizing government, while talking reduction and lower taxes; and then doing the opposite.  This was possible for Ronnie because his personal charm and charisma made it difficult for people to disagree with his compromises.  He was fast on his feet, and his comebacks routinely neutralized an opponent who could not help liking him as a person. 
I know this because my father, Dr. Arthur F. Pillsbury, a professor at UCLA who ran the Republican Club there, was one of the first people Ronnie talked to after joining the Republican Party.  Dad liked Ronnie – but would not vote for him.  Ronnie often called our house to keep in touch because he wanted Dad in his administration when he went to Sacramento as Governor, and again when he was elected as President in 1980.  Dad refused.  He said Ronnie was not a Conservative.   
The NeoConservative pattern began with Ronald Reagan, who centralized government control in California more than any Democrat could have imagined.  In 1975, UROC, who had ensured Ronnie’s election to Governor in California, passed a resolution begging Americans not to vote for Ronnie if he ran for President or Vice-President.
      Fund’s shallow and unsubstantiated praises of HW, reflect Fund’s career as a disinformation agent, placed in 1984 at the Wall Street Journal to insert the spin, dictated by the same elites which included HW, then vice president of the United States, with Bush’s yet unrealized hopes of becoming president himself.    
Fund’s words are actually intended to reinforce a falsehood he helped create in 1989, that HW, then a sitting president, was more responsible for the strategy which brought about the end of the Cold War than he was; and that in 1992 it was a string of tiny mis-steps which denied HW a second term, for instance, underestimating public reaction to his own negation of his “no new taxes” pledge.   
In 1992, HW lost the presidency because he ignored the offers made to him by PhoneVoter TV Network (PVN), underwritten by Keystone Satellite Communications, to participate in their promotion of satellite and Interactive TV, allowing Americans to move from a passive to active role in politics.  It was nice of the founder of PVN, Brock d’Avignon, to include HW; rude of him to ignore the offer.  It is very possible the Bush Campaign lacked the technological expertise to even understand the offer they received.  This, itself, is alarming and should cause you to question why you think these people are competent to made decisions about your life, suffering no worse consequences themselves than temporary ejection from the government gravy train, if they are wrong. 
Technology was changing.  1992 witnessed two innovations which have transformed the TV industry.  Satellite, using uplinks, could vastly increase name identification for a candidate in weeks.  
Offering voters, a way to be heard with tallies of AGREE/DISAGREE PhoneVotes provided a means for voter participation.  HW ignored both these changes even after receiving the PVN proposal 12 times. Three other candidates, Ross Perot the first of these, began in February 1992 using Capitol Calling Cards supplied to him by Owners of America, Inc. PhoneVoters paid $20 for 20 votes, calling in to listen to Perot’s position on an issue and then voting AGREE/DISAGREE.  The compiled results were supplied to their Congressional Representatives and to the media. 
This is what drove Perot to 39% in June of 1992. 
Then, and even more so today, Americans were hungry to be heard.  Jerry Brown and Pat Buchanan, who each used PVN services, had tallies, but their unedited speeches were broadcast over satellite nationwide. Phone Numbers for PhoneVoting appeared at the bottom of the screen.   Voters came away with a stronger sense of what the candidate thought and who he was.   SEE CLIPS OF SPEECHES
HW chose the far more arduous path of ‘whistle-stop’ campaigning in a nation which had forgotten where the local railroad stations were located, talking to ten people at each stop.   His loss was from no other cause than hubris, ignorance and failure to understand the direction the world was taking.
The phone, automobile, television, and then the internet has impacted our expectations and increased the potential for interacting with those seeking public office.  But this potential must be used to work. 
In 1992, PVN supplied four candidates with interactive satellite TV and Telepoll services.  Three of them paid for these, the fourth used PVN services, evading payment.  The four candidates were Ross Perot, Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan and Bill Clinton. 
Guess which one, down to $50,000 in the old campaign chest and fleeing charges by multiple women of sexual abuse, evaded paying for services?  You got it, Bill Clinton.  Bill rejected free satellite time because you would have gotten to know him, without edits, in advance of the election.  STORY
PVN was the work of a group of apolitical, voluntarist libertarians lead by Brock d’Avignon. who saw how they could give Americans a needed voice in our political process, enabling them to ask questions, get answers, and make better informed decisions on who they could trust to do the right thing as ‘public servants’ or other problem-solvers.
Phone calls tallied at the bottom of mass media TV screens was that first step in 1992. Who has done more to serve you, HW’s NeoConservatives, or these guys? Here they are.  They put in months of work to give you a voice. 

The implication that somehow Americans are obligated to re-elect presidents, is also absurd. 
After the Democratic Primaries were over Jerry Brown had missed displacing Clinton by what was calculated as three days of satellite with tallies.  As the Nominee of the Democratic Party, Clinton had access to a flood of funding.  Through the election, and then again for 1996, he made sure the DNC purchased satellite time for him 24/7/365.  If you are a Democrat, ask yourself if your candidates for other offices in 1996 received satellite time or knew about the benefits of Interactive TV.  We can find no indication this was communicated.  Do let us know.
Awake to the power of technology, HW made sure no GOP candidate used either satellite or PVN for the election in 1996.  Interactive TV makes it impossible for politicians and elites to control public opinion and elections.    
HW Bush and the Clintons not only denied interactive TV debates to you, they also ensured Presidential Debates would come under their control with their agreement to establish the private exclusive Commission on Presidential Debates in 1993.  Clinton became the decider for the Democratic Party with his nomination as Democratic Candidate.  HW held the same power. 
Perot was thrown a bone when he came back to avoid having Owners of America, Inc. adopt Bo Gritz.  But what voice did you have?  Here is what PVN offered, which scared the Dems and GOP into a cooperative effort in 1993.  PhoneVoter TV was encouraging the audience to ask questions of 64 candidates running in 1992.  
In 1993, Haley Barbour, a friend of HWs and mega- lobbyist, was appointed Chairman of the Republican National Committee.  Barbour, on orders from HW, forbade GOP presidential candidates from using satellite or PVN services.  See Letter
What had happened was noticed.  France Telecom purchased Keystone Satellite Communications for $100M, ten times its value of $10M, on the order of Bilderberger leader Etienne d’Avignon.  Brock learned this from David Hansford, the General Manager of Keystone a year later.  The deal with PVN for free satellite time ended immediately after the 1992 primaries.  
After Colin Powell and Steve Forbes dropped out, the most attractive GOP candidate for 1996 was Lamar Alexander.  Alexander was not an HW insider.  Mike Murphy, who remains today an HW insider, was tasked to become Alexander’s Media Consultant.  Murphy stopped the campaign from using satellite and blocked PVN proposals over six times.  The HW anointed nominee was Bob Dole.  Dole’s campaign used no satellite and no TV Interaction.  PVN Notes, show attempted contacts with Alexander Campaign, stopped by Murphy. 
HW had ensured Bill Clinton a second term.  It would seem there had been a meeting of minds and motives. 
In 2000, HW campaigned via Whistle-Stop with son, W. again, only this time with a flatcar loaded with an uplink trailer, which connected them to satellite 24/7.  No other GOP candidate for president used uplinks.  PVN founder, d’Avignon, sent out offers to a GOP candidate, John McCain, for an interactive "Straight Talk TV" Campaign On Satellite (COS) and The RepubliCan Channel; because of the obvious cheating of the American people of audience participation in TV and debates by HW and W. as they did not contact PhoneVoter TV Network, just Keystone for uplinks to their Bushco studio and downlinks to TV news directors.
John McCain received 13 proposals from PNV in 1999 – 2000.   Mike Murphy, who had gone after the position as Media Consultant to John McCain in January 1999, intercepted these offers.  2000 Contact with McCain
McCain and his wife, Cindy, learned this had taken place when d’Avignon put the 13th proposal in their hands as they stood next to the Straight Talk Bus outside the Beverly Hills Hotel as the California Primary closed.  Reading the proposal Cindy exclaimed, “John, with this we could have won!”  
Fund would do his bit by planting the story which claimed McCain had a black love child.  Fund would run the cover-up afterwards as well, but not well enough to avoid McCain running him to ground at the Wall Street Journal, where the courageous Fund hid under his desk. Fund should have received the Brown Badge of Courage.
The PVN insertion of satellite and TV Interaction resulted in the shopping channels you use today.  You can vote on, “So You Think You Can Dance?”  But no one in the Main Stream Media or politics wants you using the potential for TV Interaction to decide who you can trust, what works best, about options for health care, correction of our banking system which provide a stable economy, allowing you to understand the facts and choose for yourself.  Interactive TV makes this possible.  HW and the Clinton’s made sure you would not know. This attempt to control who we elect, and the choices available to us is the real legacy of George H. W. Bush. 
Today, Americans can get to know candidates for office long before election day.  Along with candidates, consider what solutions we need, and what works best for you.  Interactive TV makes this possible along with other choices denied to all of us. 58% of all TV households have a smart tv or 1,2,3 TVs connected to an Internet device. Its time to talk back.
Today, find out how at Freedom Interactive TV Networks Association.  Get the facts.  Decide for yourself.   

Monday, November 26, 2018

Mark Crispin Miller Nails the JFK Cover-up and Casts Light on 9/11

From: Off-Guardian

JFK 55 years on: Casting Light on 9/11 & Other 21st Century Crimes

Graeme MacQueen

1962: US statesman John F Kennedy, 35th president of the USA, making a speech. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)
Fifty-five years ago, on November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Although there has been a great deal written about this event over the years, I want to draw attention to one exceptionally important article, originally delivered as a talk on November 20, 1998. Vincent Salandria gave this talk in Dallas at the invitation of the Coalition on Political Assassinations. (See Sources.)
Salandria had been a high school teacher at the time of the assassination (he later became a lawyer) and was one of the first people in the US to write essays expressing dissent from the government narrative of lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, maverick leftist.
In his 1998 talk Salandria went through over a dozen of the famous obstacles to the government story—the grassy knoll witnesses, the “magic bullet,” the testimony of the doctors at Parkland Hospital, and so on—but he did not let himself get sidetracked into detailed debates on any of these. By 1998 he had already seen, and participated in, 35 years of such debates. He had long ago concluded that, “the national security state at the very highest level of its power killed President John F. Kennedy for his efforts at seeking to develop a modus vivendi with the Soviets and with socialist Cuba.”
In 1998 he felt it was time to warn researchers about the danger of wasting time in “false debates,” where the essential facts had clearly been established and the wrangling served only the purposes of the assassins. Rather than repeat the debates, Salandria decided in 1998 to outline his basic approach. I will call this the Salandria Approach. I draw attention to it because I believe it helps us find our feet when we tackle not only the JFK killing but many of the killings in the 21st century’s War on Terror.
Here are Salandria’s words:
I began to sift through the myriad facts regarding the assassination which our government and the US media offered us. What I did was to examine the data in a different fashion from the approach adopted by our news media. I chose to assess how an innocent civilian-controlled US government would have reacted to those data. I also envisioned how a guilty US national security state which may have gained control of and may have become semi-autonomous to the civilian US governmental structure would have reacted to the data of the assassination.”
 He adds that,
only a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins would consistently resort to accepting one improbable conclusion after another while rejecting a long series of probable conclusions.”
Let us take two cases from Salandria’s list of over one dozen in order to see what he was getting at.


Dozens of witnesses thought there were shots from an extended grassy rise, containing several structures, situated west of the famous Texas School Book Depository Building. Salandria, refusing to get drawn into the familiar debate, says:
Let us assume arguendo [for the sake of argument] that all of the eyewitnesses who had concluded that shots were fired from the grassy knoll were dead wrong. But an innocent government could not and would not at that time have concluded that these good citizens were wrong and would not have immediately rushed to declare a far-fetched single assassin theory as fact.”
Note that Salandria’s emphasis is not on the details of the grassy knoll discussion but on the method the government followed in its investigation. And he is right, both about the immediate claim that Oswald acted alone— presented, as he explains, by a government representative on November 22 itself—and about the identical statement presented later by the Warren Commission.
In both cases the claim flew in the face of the eyewitness evidence. For example, despite the fact that there are references to dozens of witnesses to shots from the grassy knoll in the 26 volumes of evidence appended to the Warren Report, the Commission itself displayed little interest in them. And when the Commission dismissed every single one of the grassy knoll witnesses to protect its lone gunman theory it did so without bothering to make a sustained argument.
It chose instead to play a credibility game. It pronounced:
No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building” Warren Report, p. 61
In other words, the Commission decided to gather together into one great agglomeration the credibility of its seven well dressed and high-ranking white men associated with government and use this to crush the credibility of the “good citizens” who were present in the Plaza and witnessed, with their senses, the unfolding of events.
It was a breathtaking move. But in what way could it be said to characterize an innocent government? How could any serious investigator pretend to solve an evidential problem by playing a credibility game? Standard practice in a homicide investigation would be to find all witnesses, to interview them, and to record their statements impartially, making sure to ask each one of them where they thought the shots came from and why they reached their conclusion. How would the opinions of congressmen, spies and the like possibly be relevant to the case when these gentlemen declined to offer adequate counter-evidence or to give a serious argument to support their peculiar conclusion?
Readers who have never had the opportunity to see and hear for themselves the good citizens in question may benefit from Mark Lane’s documentary:

Well, where, in such a case, does the Salandria Approach lead us? We have no choice but to conclude that the Warren Commission’s investigation was not what we would expect from “an innocent civilian-controlled US government.”
It was more characteristic of “a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins.” There was a predetermined perpetrator and an insistence on the guilt of this perpetrator, while evidence suggestive of a conspiracy was systematically ignored, distorted or suppressed.
Suppose we were to apply the Salandria Approach to events of the 21st century–to the eyewitnesses at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, for example? We have over 150 witnesses who reported that they saw, heard or felt explosions at the time of the beginning of destruction of the Twin Towers. (See Sources for assertions in this and the following paragraph.)
Their testimony constitutes very significant support for the theory that the Trade Center was blown up and did not undergo collapse from structural failure caused by airplane collision. We are not simply talking about loud sounds here. We are talking about sounds that experienced firefighters suspected were caused by bombs. We are talking about patterns of explosions seen pulverizing the buildings. We are talking, in some cases, about witnesses who say these explosions threw them through the air. Now, avoiding the debates about the details of this testimony, let us follow Salandria and ask: What did the government’s 9/11 Commission do with these eyewitness accounts, all of which were in its possession?
The answer is that it called for no comprehensive search for eyewitnesses (neither did the FBI, as far as I can discover), nor did it have such witnesses asked the appropriate questions. It devoted to these witnesses a single line in the roughly 585 pages of its Report. And that single line is both dismissive and extremely misleading.
What about the National Institute of Standards and Technology, assigned by government the task of looking in detail at the destruction of the Trade Center and sorting out the reasons for its destruction? In the thousands of pages of its reports on the Twin Towers we find not a single mention of the explosion witnesses. Despite NIST’s pride in its interviewing techniques, and despite its access to all the relevant information, it somehow missed over 150 witnesses. It made no attempt to find them, to sort out their testimony, or to discover how their words might illumine the mystery of the so-called “collapses.”
We should recall that the efforts of the 9/11 Commission and NIST were mere follow-through. A strenuous attempt to promote the structural failure hypothesis was begun on the very day of September 11, 2001, in the absence of serious evidence in its favour and in bold contradiction to what large numbers of witnesses were saying. (Sources)

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Craig Loves Ayn - A Love Story Gone Wrong

Written by  
The film opening for Ayn Rand's “Atlas Shrugged,” opened recently. My son, Arthur, said he wanted to see it, so we went. Dozens of people I know had waited for decades for this movie to make it to the theater. As reported, the characters were flat. Attempts to draw parallels between the predictions made by Rand in her book of 1958 to what we face today fail both badly and sadly. I was strongly reminded of a conversation I had, years ago, with my former husband about fantasies that don't work. I would bet Craig was there in the theater on opening night, despite what I am about to tell you.
Craig and I were married and living in Santa Barbara when, one night, Craig asked me in a puzzled voice, “I can't make my fantasy come out the way I want.” I looked up from the book I was reading. “What?”
Fantasies are part of our inner lives and generally it is a good thing when fantasies remain private. From the look on Craig's face it was clear he was sincerely puzzled, unable to understand his failure to marshal his not inconsiderable intellect in this task of pure unreality. But, according to what he told me that evening, this was not for lack of trying. His face was crumpled and red. He looked like a man in the throes of an arduous task or badly constipated.
You could see he was hesitating to tell me the details. I waited, attentive, dispassionate.
As expected, Craig's need for advice overcame any hesitancy to share the details. Others who know Craig have noted his disconnect from what is generally normal. I sensed this would be one such occasion.
It starts out fine. I'm in the torch of the Statue of Liberty, looking out on New York. Ayn Rand is standing there with me as we gaze out on the city, waiting for the lights to go out.”
If you are not familiar with Rand's work you need to know the final denouement of the book, “Atlas Shrugged” includes the moment when the lights of New York wink out because her Nietzscheian super-heroes have turned their backs on the world, thus canceling all electric power. Craig fancies himself one of the supermen who gather in Galt's Gulch, awaiting the awareness of how essential they are to the world to dawn in those Left Behind.
Craig went on, “I am holding Ayn in my arms. She is saying, “No, no, I cannot be unfaithful to Frank and Nathaniel.”
Frank is Frank O'Connor, Rand's long-suffering husband. Nathaniel is Nathaniel Branden, Rand's lover, 25 years her junior. Rand inflicted her fantasy life liberally on others, many of them very close to her. Rand lived out her fantasies and coerced those nearest and dearest to her to put up with these fantasies, justifying them as the rational, necessary, logic of her ideas and values. Frank had to leave the couple's apartment as Branden was arriving to help Rand with her fantasy life.
For details read: Judgment Day by Nathaniel Branden and The Passion of Ayn Randby Barbara Branden.
By his own report, Craig, the only person who ever stalked Ayn Rand, was obsessed with Rand and jealous of Branden. Craig sent Rand copies of his papers on math, which Rand could not understand and so appreciate. Craig sat for hours in the lobby of her apartment building, dressed in a newly purchased Brooks Brothers suit, his finger nails manicured, hair cut, shoes shined, holding orchids for Ayn for quite some time. He also made himself known to her in ways which resulted in a nasty stay-away letter from her attorney.
Craig's fantasy continued. “I pulled out two documents to show Ayn. That day I had paid Frank and Nathaniel to end their relationships with her. I handed Ayn quit-claim deeds from Frank and Nathaniel, who, I told her, were even then leaving the city.”
What perplexed Craig, because he could not change it to conform with his fantasy, was Ayn decking him with a fast right and left punch, just as he tries to embrace her.
Craig looked to me for understanding.
I pointed out his fantasy was diametrically opposed to the reality he had experienced. Rand loathed him and adamantly refused to have anything to do with him, by his own report. Perhaps this failure was the rational reaction of his mind when asked to distort reality. Craig paused, considering. Clearly, he did not like the answer provided.
I don't know if he ever managed to get a different outcome with this particular fantasy, the subject then being dropped.
Emotionally normal people move beyond the ideas of Ayn Rand by examining them in detail and understanding the source of the attraction. But many retain a fondness, in the same category as enjoyed earlier with fairy tales.
When Rand was first writing Nietzsche's ideas had more traction, as less was known about psychopathy and the neurobiology of the human mind. People in their late teens and early twenties often go through a period of playing with the idea they are 'special' in this way. Most recover.
The assertion some group is superior, possessing a right to live by different standards, expressed itself in two other venues in America during the 20th Century. The first was through the work of Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda, whose work in what he called 'public relations,' also known as propaganda. This became the tool which remade American culture at exactly the time Rand what it meant to be an American. The second came out of the thinking of Leo Strauss, where those 'destined to rule' were empowered to take whatever action needed to take control. This is the explicit tool used by the Neoconservatives.
Ideas, theology and philosophy, are early human tools used to create a common set of values and expectations, allowing humanity to function in a world of human design, beyond the hard-wiring of the human brain. But going beyond that small town took humanity onto dangerous ground.
Humanity originates from a human culture of small groups where it was possible for all individuals to know each other well and so reliably predict the behavior of others. Think of this as visual credit-rating, an assessment of reliability, honesty, and other values, which aid survival and provide community safety-nets. The drama of superpersonhood had not yet reared its head. The problem of psychopathy, those whose neurological make up is distorted and who have no conscience, was not yet understood. Many now believe the recurring presence of this haunting icon, the devil, refers to those we now know as psychopaths who do, routinely, refer to themselves as outside the ordinary rules, as supermen.
Rand, herself, by reports from those who knew her, was inclined to ignore reciprocal social obligations, citing various justifications of ignoring the subject. She asserted different rules for her supermen than for ordinary humanity, therefore rejected the Lockean ideas which underlie the foundations of American culture.
The hero of her first work of fiction, The Little Street, was drawn from the example of the most infamous cold-blooded murderer of 1928. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. (Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.)
William Hickman, Ayn's chosen model, kidnapped a 12 year old girl, held her for ransom and then murdered her. After chopping her body into parts he extorted money from her frantic father and shoved her body out of the car to be found, the girl's dead eyes sewn open.
Rand was explicitly aware of the circumstances when she chose Hickman.
The network of social obligations is the basis of all human culture, the original and proven-to-work, strategy which allowed humanity to survive and prosper. Robust social networks arise organically, as discussed in Hayek's, The Fatal Conceit. The corporate business-model, profiting in any way possible, had nothing to do with human survival. Instead, it has brought us to the brink of annihilation.
America was founded on the ideas of equality for all people, an affirmation of the natural rights philosophy of John Locke, expressed so eloquently in our Declaration of Independence. This idea worked with the Christian beliefs which brought the Puritans and Quakers to a new world where all people would be equal in law, as they are in the eyes of Christ and in nature.
Three times in the 20th Century ideas have been used to convert us to a view which deifies corporations. This line of reasoning has proven potently valuable to the entire Military Industrial Complex, in recent years, especially the Brothers Koch. The first people who should have noticed what they proposed was not free market were the same people who lined up to support them, framed as they were in the Rand Fairy Tale. This is the reason Alan Greenspan was named Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The corporates knew we would not attack 'one of our own.'
Ideas which consistently create disaster, personal, national and global, should be deleted.  End the Fed.  Enforce accountability by demanding restitution for profits made through fraud. Accept the truth, no matter how many fantasies have to die.

This article is dedicated to Nathaniel Branden, who recognized Craig Franklin as bizarre while we were in therapy with him, and to Craig himself, who, still trying to achieve his fantasy, illustrated in one story line, how psychopaths impact our world, from the personal to the hidden reaches of corporate profit.

Wednesday, July 04, 2018

John Fund and the Brown Badge of Courage

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

Somehow this disappeared from this site and others, for instance American Politics Journal.  Tell us why, Gene!

       Cast your minds back to the primary season of 2000.  John McCain had begun a ground swell in the Granite State with a campaign that allowed American voters to contrast a real war hero willing to meet your eye and listen.  No matter what, McCain took no crap from anyone, especially a service-dodger like George W. Bush, the Son of Monied Oil. 

            McCain is not a man without faults, but a lack of courage is not among them. 

            Senator McCain was cleaning the floor with the Bush Baby when suddenly a rumor started to float across the panorama of politics covertly maligning the former POW. 
            John McCain, the rumor says, has an illegitimate love child who is half black.  His campaign screeches to a halt; the rumor, coming at a critical time, causes irreparable damage to his campaign, hitting him at the ballot box like a nuclear explosion.
            There was no truth to the rumor.  McCain and his wife have an adopted child who is of mixed heritage but neither of them is biologically related to the child they took into their home and hearts. 
            Now that we know and understand the tactics employed by the NeoCons we can make some very educated judgments about where the rumor originated.  It has the marks of a Rove generated creative writing project.  The  rumor was circulated by Political Operative Prime for the Bushavicks, John Fund.  Placing such rumors is one of his most important functions for Bush and Associates. 
            Just as the rumor was washing away the Senator's chances for the nomination McCain discovered the identity of the man responsible.  At that moment in time John McCain was in New York.
            Not a man to leave to others what a real man does for himself, the Senator stormed into the officers of the Wall Street Journal to confront the pestilential little NeoCon prick who had demeaned his honor and his family.
            John Fund, a non-veteran of anything but the war on Americans being waged so openly now by the Bush Administration, showed all of the courage you could expect of someone like him.  Hearing the roars from the reception area he scampered into his office and hid under his desk. 
            Remember that.  This is an insight that serves to inform us on the nature of those in charge of our Nation's destiny.   It is very likely Bush Jr.  would have beaten John to the hidey hole, if it had been him.

            John Fund is a distinguished recipient of the Brown Badge of Courage.  The award ceremony took place in the Wall Street Journal Men's Room soon after his close  encounter with war hero, John McCain, memorialized above.

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Sex, Lies, and the Tape. The John Fund Story

Note:  Story has some inaccuracies.  The notes in italics are mine, Melinda Pillsbury-Foster.  The author, John Connolly, has since moved on and written a book  Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him, and All the Justice that Money Can Buy - The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein Oct 10, 2016  by James Patterson and John Connolly  

I was struck at how much that story has in common with those who cooperated with John and the story eventually revealed by the article below.  Filthy Rich has been ordered and I will be reviewing here.  

FLORIDA, USA, September 04 2001(

By John Connolly 


When the stone thrower himself lives in a glass house, it is a matter of legitimate public interest.

John Fund, the forty-six year old writer on the staff of the Wall Street Journals' editorial page, has staked out a position as a man of integrity. On his frequent appearances on cable and network talk shows, he espouses the position of the right-wing conservatives. He is friends with people in the Bush White House. He is a dear friend of Conservative Grover Norquist. He recently met with Vice President Cheney. During the Clinton presidency he wrote often of the terrible acts committed by Clinton against women. On his appearances on Television evangelist Pat Robertson"700 Club" show, he often condemns those who do not live up to the highest moral standards. This conservative pundit seems to be on television more often, than "I Love Lucy" reruns. Although he portrays himself as a voice of the religious right, the never married Fund has cut a wide swath of sexual relationships through-out the Libertarian and Conservative parties. He's a regular right-wing Lothario. He is also a hypocrite.

There is nothing newsworthy about consensual sex between two unmarried adults, even if one of those supposed adults, acts badly. But, when a high profile public person stakes out the moral high ground, that person had better not be standing on quick sand. A few months age, Morgan Pillsbury a twenty-seven year old woman, contacted me with information about her former lover of three years, John Fund. Although, I heard stories of Fund's less than cavalier treatment of women and particularly his Clintonesque treatment of one particular woman, I did not think that information worthy of a story. Amusing gossip yes-newsworthy no. But, the story Morgan told, gave me pause. If her allegations were true, Fund's relationship with her was not only bizarre; it was treacherous and bordered on the perverse. To back up her story of the bad behavior of John Fund, she furnished me with a tape recording she made of a conversation she had with Fund. The tape and conversations with Morgan's' mother, Melinda Pillsbury-Foster and others confirmed Morgan's tale.

Twenty years ago, Melinda and John Fund both worked for the then fledgling Libertarian party in California. Fund was the executive director of the local party in Sacramento. 

Melinda, who at the time was the mother of four children, she would have three more, began sexual relationship with the much younger Fund.  Melinda said, "John and I had a sexual relationship for four or five years. When he moved east, we remained friends. It never really ended." Melinda who is still active in the Libertarian party went on to say, "Six or Seven years ago, John called and during the conversation he told me, "Melinda if any of your children come east, have them look me up." I didn't realize that he was using me as a dating service!" Last year Melinda learned that not only had Fund been sleeping with Morgan, he was the father of the child she would abort.

Not only had Fund violated his twenty year old friendship with Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, he, much like Congressman Gary Condit (Fund recently wrote a scathing indictment of Condit's behavior) insisted that Morgan keep their three year affair secret.

Morgan was 23 years old the first time then 43 years old Fund, took her to bed. Sounds all too familiar doesn't it? According to Morgan, John Fund was the third man she had been intimate with. She had contacted him when she moved to the New York area after a bad breakup with her previous boyfriend. Instead of receiving consolation from the man who had on occasion been her babysitter back in California, Fund took her to bed. In 1999, confronted with an unplanned and apparently unwanted pregnancy, Fund abandoned Morgan and without attempting to dissuade her, allowed the distraught young woman to have an abortion, without any support from him.

John Fund is a full time writer for the Wall Street Journal. Yet, when I began researching a profile on Mr. Fund, he unlike most other journalist, began a campaign to kill the story. A source close to Fund told me a few days ago, that Fund and a confederate were attempting to plant a false and malicious blind item about two people at Talk magazine. They believed that the item would so frighten the victims that they would see to it that my profile of Mr. Fund was spiked. Mr. Fund and his pals can congratulate themselves, to protect innocent people from being attacked; I have pulled the piece from Talk magazine. Hence this abbreviated piece which is written solely to introduce the reader to John Fund on tape with Morgan Pillsbury, the mother of the aborted child.

So there should be no confusion, this tape was made legally and given to me by Morgan Pillsbury. Ms. Pillsbury also gave me her permission to use her name, as did her mother Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. I have learned that very recently, Ms. Pillsbury who has experienced some financial difficulties, has at Fund's request, moved in with him. John Fund lives in an apartment in Jersey City, just a stones throw from the Holland Tunnel. I have also been told that Mr. Fund, for whatever reason, has given Morgan cash and a new computer.

The following is a transcription of the tape of Morgan Pillsbury and John Fund. Mr. Fund makes mention of how he is being threatened by Melinda. 

He apparently believes that Melinda has no right to be angry for his deceiving her for three years, all the while sleeping with, and impregnation her oldest child. For those who doubt the veracity of the transcript or wish to hear the anger and seething hostility of John Fund, Please listen to the audio tape.  John Connolly

Note: I wish to thank Michael Mann, who runs this web site, for his assistance.

Post Script from Melinda: (At the time I first listened to the tape, I was so stunned many details slipped right by me.  At the time, I was full time caring for my son, Arthur, who had shot himself through the brain in a suicide attempt.  Morgan had accepted $10,000 from Craig, my former husband, to persuade me to turn off life-support.  I found out about her motive and about her having been paid $5,000 a month, by Craig, to slander and libel me, through the financial discovery during the divorce.  Craig was then earning about $1,000,000 a year but did not want to pay support for a disabled son.  Sweet guy.  This was ONE of the reasons Morgan and I were not talking.  But she was right, she usually could get what she wanted out of me.  I've finally learned my lesson.)  

Copyright 2001 by Weasel All rights reserved.  Republished with the permission of the author, John Connolly.